Anarchism essentially and I don't mean that in a bad way. A "government" you can choose is a truly free society. All services would be voluntarily provided i.e. without extracting taxes at the (implied) point of a gun.

Yes, I would like to choose between police agencies, defense providers, garbage companies, park districts, schools, and so on (when they are available), without having to sell my house and move to a new county, state, or country.

I'm on my phone so getting a link would be cumbersome, but check out any of David Friedman's talks on polcentric legal systems. Essentially... violent conflict between security providers is prohibitively expensive, and without the ability to forcibly fund themselves through taxation, all parties will be incentivized to resolve their disputes peacefully.

There are three essential elements of government that a market cannot solve, defense, police, and courts.

Here is an example why competing police will not work:

George is found dead on the sidewalk on the grounds of a hotel. There is some evidence that he was unconscious when he hit the ground. He fell from his seventh floor. The Hotels security has an interest in the death being a suicide because a murder in the hotel would be bad for business. George's security firm has the same interest as the hotel because murdered clients are bad for business. George's widow Marge has hired a third security firm to investigate because a murder or an accidental fall gains her and the children a big insurance pay out. Suicide negates the policy. Marge's security company has been promised a large bonus if the death is not a suicide. Who gets the body for autopsy? Who owns the crime scene? If it is murder who brings George's killer to justice?

No Anarchist has even attempted to answer the three questions at the end. Will you be the first?

Also please do not link to some vague exposition that does not address this directly. This scenario debunks them all.

The scenario presents several conflicts of interest. This can be solved by having and independent third party do the investigation. Since we can predict that conflicts of interests will arise, and they will cast doubt on the integrity of an investigation, the protection agencies can agree in advance to independent investigations for conflict of interest. Any protection agency that did not would be suspect of being corrupt, and face poor PR as their competitors point out their lack of creditably. Furthermore their investigations could be rejected by arbitrators as being biased. In this way competing protection agencies offers a solution to conflict of interest.

However, this solution is not available in a monopolist system. When the state has a conflict of interest, it still does the investigation and adjudicates on cases involving itself. Since the state is the ultimate decider in all disputes in its territory, it will always have a conflict of interest in cases involving itself. This gives the state an incentive to instigate conflict just to decide in favor of itself.

The protection agencies would likely agree between each other on independent investigators that they trust.

Who determines that an independent investigation is required?

It is likely there will be an industry standard that determines the criteria for when and independent investigation is needed.

Who pays for the independent third party investigation?

The protection agencies can negotiate this. Note that all of these negotiations can be done prior to a conflict of interest occurring. Since we already know these things could happen.

What business would agree to allow a third party to their work and get their money, publicity and possibly their clients?

Who would pay for a suspect investigation that would not hold up in arbitration?

Who contracted with arbiters that are not in synch with or a part of your security team?

There would likely be independent arbitrators that are preselected by the various protection agencies to arbitrate disputes between them. We already know the protection agencies will have disputes so they can agree to trusted arbitrators between them, before disputes occur.

The protection agencies would likely agree between each other on independent investigators that they trust.

You have drifted off into the world of fantasy.

It is likely there will be an industry standard that determines the criteria for when and independent investigation is needed.

Where, in the wild, is there such an industry standard? How would this industry standard be enforced?

The protection agencies can negotiate this. Note that all of these negotiations can be done prior to a conflict of interest occurring. Since we already know these things could happen.

The hotel is not going to pay for an unknown outcome that could hurt their business further. The widow is certainly not going to pay an agency that is not working toward the outcome that feeds her children. The protection agencies are in competition with each other. They are not going to pay for a result that may put them out of business. Expecting this level of cooperation from competitors is naive and unlikely.

Who would pay for a suspect investigation that would not hold up in arbitration?

What fucking arbitration? What is in dispute? What contract was broken? Who is engaging or paying for an arbitrator and what are they suppose to decide.

There would likely be independent arbitrators that are preselected by the various protection agencies to arbitrate disputes between them. We already know the protection agencies will have disputes so they can agree to trusted arbitrators between them, before disputes occur.

This is not going to happen. Protection agencies do not have contracts with each other. The hotel has a contract with it's security agency. If the security agency violates the contract then there might be arbitration and a penalty or a breaking of the contract but none of that helps murdered George.

The hotel has 30 locations across the country and represents millions of dollars to the security company it contracts with. If George's death is ruled a murder or an accident it hurts the hotel and the security company's contract will likely not be renewed. Hotel security is not going to let any other team on the premises or near the body. The outcome will be intentional suicide - period - end of story.

The hotel is not going to pay for an unknown outcome that could hurt their business further...

The hotel could threaten to go to another protection provider if their current one does not cover up the murder. There would be risk in getting caught. The protection agency could prosecute the hotel for obstructing justice under their contract. If the hotels protection agency agrees to cover up a murder they would be taking big risks, for if caught they would be out of business as no customer, arbitrator, or peer agency would trust them. Lets assume they both took these risks and agreed to cover up the murder. The life insurance company might suspect the investigation if the investigation was not independent. They could refuse to pay the widow on insufficient evidence. The widow could take the Life Insurance company to arbitration, to get her payout. This could trigger a third party investigation that reveals the cover up. Or the widow could decided to settle for the restitution that her protection company would pay to her for the murder of her husband. Then she could push for an investigation into a potential cover up. Her protection agency would love to prove that its competitor was part of a cover up, collect restitution from them, and put them out of business.

Expecting this level of cooperation from competitors is naive and unlikely.

This is an incorrect assumption. Protection agencies that plan to be in business in the future will have to interact with each other many times. They have incentives to have agreements with each other, to reduce the cost of conflict.

This is an arbitration association. You were talking about a standard for arbitration amongst a group of competing business. If it is not built into a contract arbitration does not happen. Lawsuits in a court can happen but not arbitration. Competing businesses are not going to sign a contract with each other unless they are forced to.

The hotel could threaten to go to another protection provider if their current one does not cover up the murder. There would be risk in getting caught.

The hotel does not have to threaten anything. It is a forgone conclusion solely within the security agency with that much money at stake.

The protection agency could prosecute the hotel for obstructing justice under their contract.

Did you just create government and courts?

If the hotels protection agency agrees to cover up a murder they would be taking big risks, for if caught they would be out of business as no customer, arbitrator, or peer agency would trust them.

Caught by whom? If it did come to light I think they would gain business not lose it.

Lets assume they both took these risks and agreed to cover up the murder. The life insurance company might suspect the investigation if the investigation was not independent.

The life insurance company has to pay out if it is murder or accident. They are going to keep their mouth shut if it is ruled suicide.

This could trigger a third party investigation that reveals the cover up.

By whom and who would pay for it? Also, how far would this investigation get without evidence, a body, or access to the death scene?

Or the widow could decided to settle for the restitution that her protection company would pay to her for the murder of her husband.

No insurance company or security company is going to pay for a death that has been ruled a suicide.

Then she could push for an investigation into a potential cover up.

Push for an investigation by who? On what authority that will override the property rights of the hotel? Paid for how and by whom?

Her protection agency would love to prove that its competitor was part of a cover up, collect restitution from them, and put them out of business.

You are correct that this would be the desire (first correct assessment of human nature). Unfortunately, as I have pointed out they have no means to determine a cover up or murder.

This is an incorrect assumption. Protection agencies that plan to be in business in the future will have to interact with each other many times. They have incentives to have agreements with each other, to reduce the cost of conflict.

There is no way that a responsible business will sign a formal contract I am sure that there is an informal code of cooperation in dealing with conflicts that would not harm either business. In the scenario, the hotel security firm is set to lose millions in future revenue.

This is an arbitration association. You were talking about a standard for arbitration amongst a group of competing business.

The arbitration association is a group of competing arbiters.

Edit[

It is a forgone conclusion solely within the security agency with that much money at stake.

Wow people with cover up a murder for someone else without even asking? What if the hotel didn't want to cover it up? That would be a big risk to take.

]End Edit

Did you just create government and courts?

Courts would be privately provided. I am using the terms arbiter and court interchangeably.

If it did come to light I think they[protection agency] would gain business not lose it.

The protection agency that covers up a murder would lose all its credibility. No arbiter would recognise it, no other protection agency would pay restitution to it. It would lose customers and go out of business.

I my haste I confused when thy Life insurance company would payout.

No insurance company or security company is going to pay for a death that has been ruled a suicide.

The widow can sue her own insurance company if they fail to investigate a obviously biased investigation.

Unfortunately, as I have pointed out they have no means to determine a cover up or murder.

At the very least they can charge the hotels protection agency for obstructing justice if they did not allow for an independent investigation, especially since they have a conflict of interest.

There is no way that a responsible business will sign a formal contract I am sure that there is an informal code of cooperation in dealing with conflicts that would not harm either business. In the scenario, the hotel security firm is set to lose millions in future revenue.

Protection agencies would benefit from and not be harmed by agreements on how they would handle various conflicts that can be predicted before they happen. Friedman explains this in his video.